When a prospective foreign country, organization or individual wants to buy an Australia company outright, or get a controlling share, likewise with Australian land and property, Australian resources like water, minerals, energy sources, etc, the government typically calls this “Investment”. Whereas if an Australian organization or individual does the same thing, it is asset ownership!
Which is better for Australia?
When, say an Australian landowner, gets it rezoned, and hence is able to sell it at a huge profit, is that ‘Investment’, or is that just taking profits? When it is farmland, purchased years ago from the crown at a very cheap price, then selling it for development, we lose the farming land forever, and the crown has to release more, is it fair for the selling farmer to be the only beneficiary, doesn’t feel quite right to me!
If, I provide a loan or buy shares in an Australian company in the hope that it will grow and in doing so we mutually benefit, is that ‘Investment’?
Is forcing the unemployed to survive for less time on the dole, ‘Investment’? Our current Minister seems to be calling it that!
Are these really all the same thing? Are they all beneficial to Australia? Is ‘Investment’ always good?
2 Likes
I take nothing any of our politicians say as “good”, in fact anything that comes out of their mouths when their snouts are out of the trough should be taken with a grain of salt the size of Lake Eyre! It has been a long, long time since we have had someone in a major party here who had any interest in anything except their hip pocket and future corporate employment. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad how hard they all rail against a federal Corruption Commission whilst at the same time wanting a commission against workers in industry. They will use the line that unions such as in the building industry have been proved to do wrong whilst the politicians have not (and will then proceed to blame state politicians if anyone brings up the ICAC in NSW and the results of their investigations into political corruption). Investment can be good but it has to be balanced with regards long term gains and losses for the country. They thought the mining tax was a bad idea - it was an investment in the country’s future and they should have looked at how it worked in other areas like Alaska! Our current crop of politicians however are only interested in short term gains with blatant disregard for what happens after they leave office in the future. I’m yet to see anyone be able to explain to me where the state and federal governments are going to get future income from once they have finished selling everything the public owns to their own future employers? NSW lotteries went for a song - short term gain for the state government bottom line which my 5yo son’s kids will be paying for in their taxes! Put all other public owned assets in the same class which history is already showing was a bad idea. Banks used to be owned by the governments, now make super profits the public never sees - be nice to have record profits going towards hospitals and schools. Gas, electricity and water the same - all previous government owned entities now making tidy sums for their business buddies whilst the taxpayer pays more for what they once owned. Be interesting to see how many politicians of the ilk we see now would sign up to the job if there was a caveat that stated they could not work in the private sector for any company who came under a portfolio they worked in for 10 or so years after they leave parliament, or forfeit all public slush fund benefits they get including their tax free pension! I know none of those benefits can be included as “good investments for Australia” lol.
2 Likes
The Guardian has done some research into Australia and Land Ownership and or Control. Some interesting figures are revealed in the article and still some very large unknowns remain.
2 Likes
